Burgess v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:24-cv-03501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Burgess v. City of New York, counsel opposed separating discovery, but Judge Cote’s provided text contains no ruling.
The document concerns Kiana Burgess, the individually named officers, and the City of New York. It describes Burgess’s allegations and counsel’s opposition to separating discovery, but the provided text does not establish the court’s ruling or final effect on any party.
What happened
In Burgess v. City of New York, Kiana Burgess’s lawyer opposed the defendants’ request to separate discovery about individual officers from discovery about the City’s policies. The letter says Burgess was arrested, hospitalized, and restrained while awaiting arraignment, and that her complaint challenges those events.
The lawyer argued that the policy and training evidence was relevant to both the officers’ conduct and the City’s possible responsibility. The letter also argued that the City could potentially be responsible even if the individual officers were not found personally liable, and that separating the discovery would cause delay and duplicate work.
The provided text is an advocacy letter, not a court order, so it does not show how the motion was resolved. Judge Denise Cote is identified as the judge, but no ruling appears in the text.
The detailed version
- Burgess v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-03501
- Denise Cote
- Feb. 12, 2025
What the document is
The provided document is a letter from counsel for Kiana Burgess opposing the defendants’ motion to bifurcate, or separate, discovery concerning the individual officers from discovery concerning municipal liability under Monell. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state the court’s disposition of the motion.
Background described by plaintiff’s counsel
According to the letter, Burgess was arrested on June 23, 2024, after an altercation in a subway station. Counsel states that Burgess, who is insulin-dependent, repeatedly told officers that she needed insulin but did not receive it. The letter says she later developed diabetic ketoacidosis, was taken to New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and was not arraigned until five days after her arrest.
Counsel further states that Burgess was handcuffed to her hospital bed and had her legs shackled during most of her hospital stay. The letter cites deposition testimony from Officer Fazla and hospital records concerning the restraints. It also says Fazla testified that the NYPD Patrol Guide required officers to restrain hospitalized people under arrest before arraignment.
Arguments about discovery
The complaint allegedly asserts that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by restraining Burgess for five days instead of releasing her or conducting a bedside arraignment. It also allegedly asserts that the officers acted under an official City policy, supporting a municipal-liability claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services.
Burgess’s counsel argued that policy and training evidence was relevant to the individual officers’ liability as well as to the City’s potential liability. Counsel estimated that the additional municipal-liability discovery would likely consist of one deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), in which an organization designates a representative to testify about specified topics. The letter argued that separating this discovery would create delay, duplicate evidence and witnesses, and reduce efficiency.
Municipal-liability argument
The letter also argued that the City’s potential liability is not necessarily dependent on individual officers being held liable. It relied on cited Second Circuit authority for the proposition that a municipality may be liable for a constitutional injury caused by a municipal policy even when the individual liability of particular employees is not established, provided the injury is not solely attributable to the named individuals.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The document records plaintiff’s opposition to bifurcating discovery; it does not say whether Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the defendants’ motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.